Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1709 (PAT)

Pramod Kumar v. State of Bihar

2008-11-28

body2008
ORDER Petitioner had earlier come to this Court making claims for payment of the work done and liability admitted. This Court did not entertain his writ petition holding that it appears to be a simple money claim which involved question of fact. It also noted that the claim through Civil Suit would have become barred by limitation and as such while not entertaining the writ petition, this Court observed that the petitioner may make representation and pursue the departmental authority to make payment. On departmental authority not doing anything in the matter, this writ petition has been filed. 2. Learned counsel for the State objects that this writ petition would not be maintainable in view of the order passed in earlier writ petition. In my view, this is misconceived. 3. State and its instrumentality has to act in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. The statute of limitation bars the remedy but not the liability. The liability is continuing it is for the State to disclose as to why they have sat over the matter for such a long time having taken the work from the petitioner. If what is urged by the learned counsel for the State is to be accepted, it would only lead to irresponsibility on the part of the State which cannot be permitted in a democratic society governed by the Constitution. State must act fairly in all matters and not drag the citizen in litigation. This was held by the Apex Court as far back in the case of Hindustan Sugar Mills Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. since reported in AIR 1981 SC 1681 . 4. Now, the petitioner has pointed out that during the pendency of the writ petition, State woke up and decided to send the matter to the Liability Committee to examine the same. Liability Committee examined the matter and accepted the liability of the State to make payment and noted that earlier payment could not be made merely because of lack of fund allocation in that regard. This decision of the Liability Committee has been recently given to the petitioner and is dated 12.6.2008. The Liability Committee consisted of, inter alia, the Chief Engineer, the Superintending Engineer and the Executive Engineer. Faced with this, learned counsel for the State seeks time to take instruction in the matter. 5. This decision of the Liability Committee has been recently given to the petitioner and is dated 12.6.2008. The Liability Committee consisted of, inter alia, the Chief Engineer, the Superintending Engineer and the Executive Engineer. Faced with this, learned counsel for the State seeks time to take instruction in the matter. 5. I may only mention that if on technicality this Court had refused to entertain this writ application would not the Court be doing injustice because it would be a perpetuation of arbitrary action by the State in denying the legitimate liability of the petitioner. Thus, rejecting all contentions of the respondent-State as to the maintainability, I direct the State counsel to take instruction in the matter and file a comprehensive counter affidavit, so that the matter may be disposed of at the stage of admission itself. Petitioner would file a supplementary affidavit bringing on record the report of the Liability Committee. 6. Let a copy of this order be given to learned counsel for the State. 7. Put up on 19.12.2008 under the same heading, retaining its position.